PDA

View Full Version : To go young?


mdep524
12-24-2003, 12:05 PM
OK, here's a question to really think about all the way though before coming to a decision:

Assuming Williams and the White Sox don't pull off any really big moves in the next three months, would it be etter to go cheap and old and pretend to be competitive (i.e sign Juan Gone, Ellis Burks, some stop gap starter, etc.), or to go cheap and young and build a really solid team for '05 and '06? (i.e. trade for a bunch of prospects.)

I know I for one am so frickin sick and tired of rebuilding in this town- the Bulls, the Bears, and especially the Sox. But if Williams isn't going to pull off anything big, I don't know how excited I am about this team for next season- its not too much better than a .500 team, certainly won't compete for a championship, and will almost certainly lose its best player (Maggs) to free agency next year. Is this what we want to put our hope into?

Just something to consider, but what if we go young again? Trade Mags and/or Lee and Konerko to LA for Miller (SP) and (one of) Luney (1B) or Gutierrez (OF) or Edwin Jackson (SP). The Dodgers have such a great farm system while ours, aside from one or two Jeremy Reeds and Kris Honels, is awful. We could really build around a guy like Miller, from what I hear. He's lefty, throws 95 mph and had a 2.22 ERA in the minors last year.

By '05, hopefully the Dodgers imports would be ready, we'd see if Harris and Rowand can play, Olivo and Crede will be improved, Borchard and Reed will be ready, and we might have an exciting team with a legit chance to compete, unlike the retreads we want to field this year. At that point we could fill whatever holes we have with FAs or midesason trades, because we'd be in a serious position to compete.

The saddest thing about the current White Sox team (aside from our ridiculous budget, crappy owner and misrepresentation in the media) is there is very little hope for the future. Maybe we could infuse some hope and excitement from the Dodgers (and other places perhaps) and when the old Yankees and Red Sox fall apart in '05, we'll make a good WS run.

I'm not saying this is definitely the best way to go, but something to consider. What I really want is for JR and KW would show some initative.

cornball
12-24-2003, 12:42 PM
You can build a winning team in a hurry if you want too. The problem is it costs money.

habibharu
12-24-2003, 12:47 PM
i agree, i could live with them having 70 wins this year if they had all young prospects. but what i couldnt live with is them having 82 wins and having the guys they have now and barely competing in the AL. so i would either have them be really good, with 90+ wins, or crappy, but very young with like 70 wins. i would hate it if they were like this past year, medicore and looking good here and there

TaylorStSox
12-24-2003, 12:56 PM
I agree. There's no point patching this team back together again. They've proven they can't win. A couple of "rent a players" aren't going to change anything.

Personally, I find it somewhat exciting to rebuild. I enjoy watching the kids develop.

wassagstdu
12-24-2003, 01:08 PM
Call me crazy but I like this team as a base to build on. We are -- well, not solid, but interesting -- at third, short, left, right, maybe catcher. Pitching is not irretrievable. Let's see what happens at second (We missed out on Pokey Reese; is Alomar still out there?) and in center (Wouldn't we like to have Lofton or Cameron bacK?). First is a huge problem, and DH may be.

Mainly, I like the difference I can see Ozzie making, which solves the biggest reason for my pessimism -- station to station, home-run-or-nothing (DP) baseball. Not to mention eliminating the devastating effect last year's constant lineup changes probably had. If the Sox are ever going to win it will be as a team, and they now have a manager who said that with practically the first words out of his mouth.

I think the Sox may surprise people. Lee gets better every year and is a pretty good left fielder, Crede may take hold, Valentin is due for a career year (and will thrive under Ozzie's philosophy), Maggs will be playing for his FA riches, knowing he will be worth more after a successful postseason, and it will be fun to see how Olivo progresses with Alomar to tutor him. Closers are overrated (see Billy Beane), and Colon is not irreplaceable.

Nick@Nite
12-24-2003, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by cornball
You can build a winning team in a hurry if you want too. The problem is it costs money.

Some owners want to win, and since they already know what it's like to be rich, they will spend the money for a winner.

JR, are you listening?

:reinsy
"No"

Lip Man 1
12-24-2003, 01:20 PM
This franchise which is teetering on complete indifference by the majority of Chicagoans can not afford to rebuild for the 4th time since the labor impasse of 1994.

How many times does this team expect to go into a rebuilding mode and keep any fans?

As Dick Allen (I think) correctly pointed out, the problem is that this organization does not know the correct way to rebuild as evidenced by their past attempts. Further the few young stars they have developed are eventually traded or dumped because the organization refuses to pay the going rate to keep them claiming they don't have the money because the fans won't come out and support them. The fans won't come out and support them because the club usually is mediocre. The average Sox record for the past six years has been 83-79.

It's a vicious, continual cycle of mediocrity.

The only way to break this, in my opinion, is either a new attitude among current ownership (i.e. start acting like a team in the nation's 3rd biggest city), complete new ownership or a complete change in expectations and attitudes among the majority of the fan base (i.e. a willingness to completely support the frabchise for the additional three or four years of rebuilding.)

I don't think any of these solutions are possible in the immediate future, therefore the cycle of mediocrity will continue.

Of the three possibilities the best bet to take place in the next few years is new ownership due to the fact that Uncle Jerry will be 68 in February.

Those are the sobering facts folks...sorry.

As for me, if I'm going to be mediocre, I'd much rather be mediocre with a winning season of 82 wins then being mediocre with a losing record of 76 wins. At least a winning record is something to take some pride in (I grant you it's not much but what do you expect from the Sox?)

Lip

Daver
12-24-2003, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by wassagstdu
Call me crazy but I like this team as a base to build on. We are -- well, not solid, but interesting -- at third, short, left, right, maybe catcher. Pitching is not irretrievable. Let's see what happens at second (We missed out on Pokey Reese; is Alomar still out there?)

The Sox non-tendered Alomar,therefore they could not sign him until May 1st of 2004.

SoxxoS
12-24-2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by TaylorStSox
Personally, I find it somewhat exciting to rebuild. I enjoy watching the kids develop.

I agree, but I would rather just win.

We were supposed to have this awesome core of young pitchers and hitters to buid around 5 years ago. In fact, Baseball America picked us to win the world series in 2004 with a rotation of Rauch, Honel, Buerhle, Malone and Stumm (or something like that). This rebuilding thing gets tiresome after a while. There are too many varibles with young players, like most of them being bad. I thought Joe Borchard was going to be a cornerstone to our outfield for years to come...he was about as "can't miss" as one can get after his Birmingham season. Look at where he is now. Plus, when we do develop an awesome player like Maggs, look who is on the trading block.

When we were in first place in 2001 and the trading deadline was near, Schu said he didn't want to mortgage the future on just this year. I am confused, because the future is now, and it SUCKS. Yet, we didnt go for it all that year. A paradox if you ask me.

I am sick of rebuilding. I think Lip asked the rhetorical question of "How many more years are we going to rebuild, hasn't the last 90 been enough?" We should be reloading, but we can't do that with our BS owner, who should step down immediately if he is really a Sox fan. I am beginning to think he is a closet Cubs fan by his recent actions, because it sure doesn't look like he wants to compete with them...

Lip Man 1
12-24-2003, 01:57 PM
Sox:

As I stated months ago, Uncle Jerry will not be influenced, coerced, threatened or bullied by what the Cubs do or don't do.

He has already publicly stated twice that Chicago has always been a Cubs town.

Lip

TaylorStSox
12-24-2003, 02:18 PM
For Christ sakes!!! Who cares about the freakin Cubs? Their success has no bearing on the WHITE SOX. It is their town. Who gives a ****? I don't. We're not going to lose any fans that we haven't already. White Sox fans are dedicated. Of course it's crucial that we win. But, not because the Cubs are good. We should want to win for our own selfish reasons.

TornLabrum
12-24-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Sox:

As I stated months ago, Uncle Jerry will not be influenced, coerced, threatened or bullied by what the Cubs do or don't do.

He has already publicly stated twice that Chicago has always been a Cubs town.

Lip

And, as we both agree, that statement is a flat-out lie.

soxrme
12-24-2003, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by TaylorStSox
For Christ sakes!!! Who cares about the freakin Cubs? Their success has no bearing on the WHITE SOX. It is their town. Who gives a ****? I don't. We're not going to lose any fans that we haven't already. White Sox fans are dedicated. Of course it's crucial that we win. But, not because the Cubs are good. We should want to win for our own selfish reasons.

1.9 million people went to see the Sox last year, that is not shabby. Lets worry about us and not the cubs. We have a decent nucleus, if Konerko hits and Thomas doesn't kill Ozzie we will be ok. The infield could be really good defensively, if Rowand plays as well as I think he can we will be alright in the outfield. We should be able to beat the twins and royals with what we have. It is obvious we need another stud pitcher but who doesn't. Lets see what happens before Soxfest when KW likes to make a big move.

TornLabrum
12-24-2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by soxrme
1.9 million people went to see the Sox last year, that is not shabby. Lets worry about us and not the cubs. We have a decent nucleus, if Konerko hits and Thomas doesn't kill Ozzie we will be ok. The infield could be really good defensively, if Rowand plays as well as I think he can we will be alright in the outfield. We should be able to beat the twins and royals with what we have. It is obvious we need another stud pitcher but who doesn't. Lets see what happens before Soxfest when KW likes to make a big move.

In that one paragraph, I counted six items that were qualified by "if", "should be", "could be", and "but".

:reinsy

"Ucker-say!"

mdep524
12-24-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
This franchise which is teetering on complete indifference by the majority of Chicagoans can not afford to rebuild for the 4th time since the labor impasse of 1994.

How many times does this team expect to go into a rebuilding mode and keep any fans?

I know what you mean here, it is frustrating, but you have to consider everything that has happened up til today- all the rebuilding of the 90s, all the free agents we've missed, etc.- as a SUNK COST. Mistakes maybe, but we cannot change anything about the past now. You have to take all that as a given and decide what the best overall strategy for the future is RIGHT NOW, regardless of the past.



It's a vicious, continual cycle of mediocrity...

As for me, if I'm going to be mediocre, I'd much rather be mediocre with a winning season of 82 wins then being mediocre with a losing record of 76 wins. At least a winning record is something to take some pride in (I grant you it's not much but what do you expect from the Sox?)


I disagree with you here. Are you saying you'd rather get 82 wins out of a patch-up, low ceiling team with no future than 76 wins with an inexperienced, promising team with a high ceiling? That's the problem with the Bears- they always get random veterans on the team to save face and go 7-9 or 8-8, when no real progress is being made. Think about the next year. We've waited 80 years as it is, its worth it to wait one or two more IF the job is done correctly.

Basically what I'm saying is wouldn't you prefer 76 wins in season 1 and 96 in season 2 rather than 82 and 82?

jeremyb1
12-24-2003, 07:28 PM
The problem with our club is that we have a good young core of talent that's already reached the big leagues in Garland, Buehrle, Wright, Crede, Harris, and Olivo with Rauch, Cotts, and Reed in waiting. The issue is how to supplement that talent. We also have a lot of guys in their prime right now in Marte, Maggs, Carlos, Paully, and Loaiza.

Ideally, we can plug enough veterans into the mix to be competitive while simultaneously developing the young talent to replace Maggs, Carlos, Paully, Frank, Loaiza, Marte et al when they depart. The trouble is that we lack any kind of minor league depth right now in addition to the financial flexibility to add strong veterans to the mix to compete right now. I wish I knew what the answer was but I'm lacking answers. Hopefully last years draft will turn out well and we'll do well with our extra picks in the upcomming draft. Otherwise we're in trouble because we'll waste our window with Buehrle, Garland, Crede and company if we can't supplement them with talent at other positions.

TornLabrum
12-24-2003, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
The problem with our club is that we have a good young core of talent that's already reached the big leagues in Garland, Buehrle, Wright, Crede, Harris, and Olivo with Rauch, Cotts, and Reed in waiting. The issue is how to supplement that talent. We also have a lot of guys in their prime right now in Marte, Maggs, Carlos, Paully, and Loaiza.

Ideally, we can plug enough veterans into the mix to be competitive while simultaneously developing the young talent to replace Maggs, Carlos, Paully, Frank, Loaiza, Marte et al when they depart. The trouble is that we lack any kind of minor league depth right now in addition to the financial flexibility to add strong veterans to the mix to compete right now. I wish I knew what the answer was but I'm lacking answers. Hopefully last years draft will turn out well and we'll do well with our extra picks in the upcomming draft. Otherwise we're in trouble because we'll waste our window with Buehrle, Garland, Crede and company if we can't supplement them with talent at other positions.

I'd say that the majority of that talent, with the exception of Buehrle and perhaps Crede has been grossly overvalued, if not by ownership than certainly by the fans in a blatant example of Greg Norton syndrome.

Brian26
12-24-2003, 08:22 PM
The Sox usually do well when expectations are low. I think going into 2004, moreso than any of the previous 3 years, expectations are very, very low. The core of the team still exists. Who knows? If the bullpen can come together, and Cotts/Rauch or Scho can do well at the back end of the rotation...and if Konerko and Frank can put up decent numbers, maybe this team surprises all of us and wins 90 games this year. I still think the team, as it stands now, is better than the 2000 team.

TornLabrum
12-24-2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
The Sox usually do well when expectations are low. I think going into 2004, moreso than any of the previous 3 years, expectations are very, very low. The core of the team still exists. Who knows? If the bullpen can come together, and Cotts/Rauch or Scho can do well at the back end of the rotation...and if Konerko and Frank can put up decent numbers, maybe this team surprises all of us and wins 90 games this year. I still think the team, as it stands now, is better than the 2000 team.

And in one sentence, four items have an "if" applied to them, resulting in a "maybe" for a conclusion.

As my late dad used to say, "And if the dog hadn't stopped to [poop], he'd have caught a rabbit."

Lip Man 1
12-24-2003, 08:59 PM
Hal:

My late dad used that same phrase! Funny.....

MDEP:

Sure in a perfect world if you could guarantee me that the Sox would start winning 92, 94 games down the line I'd say tear it down and let's start over.

But as Dick Allen pointed out, the Sox don't know how to rebuild. They get a fluke years once in a while like 90 or 00 but then it's usually back to mediocrity because of factors that the organzition can both control and not control.

In short I simply don't trust the Sox particularly this ownership to finally get it right. They haven't yet in 23 years of trying.

Lip

Brian26
12-24-2003, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
And in one sentence, four items have an "if" applied to them, resulting in a "maybe" for a conclusion.


Hal,

What team doesn't have 3 or 4 "if's" going into the season? The fact is, every team does, and that includes the Yankees and the Red Sox. The Sox play well when they aren't expected to win. I predict 90+ wins in 2004.

TornLabrum
12-24-2003, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Hal,

What team doesn't have 3 or 4 "if's" going into the season? The fact is, every team does, and that includes the Yankees and the Red Sox. The Sox play well when they aren't expected to win. I predict 90+ wins in 2004.

If those were the only "ifs" the Sox faced, then I wouldn't have said anything. Another earlier post had at least another half dozen.

Brian26
12-24-2003, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
If those were the only "ifs" the Sox faced, then I wouldn't have said anything. Another earlier post had at least another half dozen.

Lighten up, it's Christmas. The Sox had a half dozen "if's" going into the 2000 season too.

TornLabrum
12-24-2003, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Lighten up, it's Christmas. The Sox had a half dozen "if's" going into the 2000 season too.

What in the name of Kris Kringle does Christmas have to do with the disaster-in-waiting that is the 2004 Chicago White Sox?

Find me a #4 pitcher, a #5 pitcher, a setup man, a closer, a second baseman, and a centerfielder and maybe we'll talk. Now, what were those questions about the 2000 Sox?

jordan23ventura
12-24-2003, 11:54 PM
There really is no issue here. Reinsdorf won't commit and never has. This team is at rebuilding stage. Delaying it another year is pointless because if JR won't attack the AL Central now he sure isn't going to do it once Cleveland and Minnesota are rebuilt. KC isn't dying either.

I feel sorry for KW here because thats really all he can do. Nobody wants to see Lee, Thomas, Maggs and company go but it's inevitable. We might as well just get through it as quickly as possible so we can win the AL Central in 2007 just to rebuild again in 2009.

jeremyb1
12-25-2003, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I'd say that the majority of that talent, with the exception of Buehrle and perhaps Crede has been grossly overvalued, if not by ownership than certainly by the fans in a blatant example of Greg Norton syndrome.

I think that's probably true for the most part but I think that just Buehrle, Garland, and Crede alone are a solid collection of young talent. Crede should prove to be an above average third basemen, Buehrle is easily one of the best young pitchers in the game, and Garland has proven himself to be a mildly above average starter at worst while he's still just 24 years old.